"If I Tell You, I'd Have To Kill You"

     That phrase is typical of a class of non-responses most government agents give when anomic people make a good faith attempt to resolve a difficult issue. Simple how, why, where, when, what, and who questions that require real responses; beyond the scope of whatever has been prepared for public consumption; will generally take the form of: “FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY;” “THAT’S CLASSIFIED;” “GANG RELATED" and so on. By virtue of their offices, it is indisputable that government agents possess superior knowledge of subject matter within the purview of their domain. As public servants, is it not appropriate for them to freely give “We the People” any requested information? However, if agents offer non-responses without empirical evidence or their oath in support of their answers, then how else are we to find out the undisclosed truth about our creation?
     The point here then, is how does the single sovereign of we the people compel or obligate a governmental official to alleviate our concerns, via proving or disproving our theories?
     Some of us might attempt to use the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), in the Title 5 UNITED STATES CODE (USC) Section 55. We’re familiar with it because the act has been used to obtain documents with information about UFO’s, the JFK assassination, and more. As demonstrated by the “blacked out” text within many of those documents, the FOIA provides that certain content is exempt from disclosure. The agency holding the documents has the discretion to decide whether the papers should be available to the “public.”
     Here’s a thought: If an official employed by an agency which the sovereign “We the People” created, and are thus above, yet that official can refuse access to the public – then is that not proof that the public is not sovereign over their ”creation;” but are truly below or subject to it? See: “twittage #2.”
     In the end though, the FOIA is only good for documents and cannot compel officials to respond to specific questions. For that, an order from a court would be in – order. The problem with the judicial method is, the government has unlimited resources and batteries of attorneys ready to oppose an unwanted query at every instance. What else is one to do?
     The method I use to obtain undisclosed knowledge from agents of the corporate government entities, or anyone for that matter, I have had to resort to out of necessity; because, no other mechanism seems to be effective. I can’t tell you how many times I have written a given court clerk or sheriff’s office requesting information as benign as a file number or something and they shot me down with the: “If I tell you, I’d have to kill you” type of response. With the agency called TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, there is a form referred to as an “I-60” that is used to request things from officials. If I had a dime for every I-60 submitted where the non-response was totally unrelated to the question – I would be a rich man. Example: to the question “How can I ‘give back,’ redeem, or reject the ‘awarded’ GOOD CONDUCT CREDIT; thereby terminating the quasi-contract, so that I can withdraw my labor without suffering arbitrary disciplinary action?” A response such as “You are properly assigned” appears to defy all logic.
     Could it be that the agency official recognizes my sovereign status as a “We the People” descendant, and for some reason is unable to respond to one who ranks above them as a “creator” of their employer? Or, could it be that, by my own use of an I-60 form that is intended for use by an “inmate’ or “offender’ as defined in statutes, is only a legal fiction, an abstraction that only exists on paper – and as a non-three-dimensional entity, possesses no assertable rights anyway? How logical is it for a three-dimensional being to give credence to a one-dimensional entity?
     Having established the difficulties of dealing with government officials, I have concluded that the most efficient and maybe the only way period, to achieve the stated goal, is to make them an “offer they can’t refuse.” not something one experiences every day, the ‘offer’ I refer to is actually called a “quasi-contract.” The best definition of this method I have found appears in the “HANDBOOK OF COMMON LAW PLEADING,” by Benjamin J. Shipman, 1895, on page 14: “The term ‘implied contracts’ is also applied to promises implied or created by the law without any agreement in fact between the parties, and even when the circumstances negate the existence of any agreement in fact, as where one person pays money which another out to have paid, or receives money which another ought to have received, or, in some cases, where benefits are conferred upon another without any agreement. The promise in these cases is merely a fiction of law, resorted to for the purpose of allowing a remedy by assumption. The obligation is not contractual but quasi-contractual.”
     Our own everyday lives provide numerous examples of implied contracts or agreement in the simplest events like conversation: When “A” speaks to “B” and “B” responds; then “A” responds in turn. The parties, “A & B” to this agreement are said to have willingly accepted the agreement itself; which is implied based on the fact they are actually having a conversation. Had there been no agreement to “converse” – their colloquy would not have been sustained very long. Party “B” could have said to party “A”, “I do not consent to this conversation”; or “B” could have just walked away saying nothing. In that case, it is obvious to anyone that “B” did not accept party “A’s” offer to converse, therefore, a contractual exchange of consideration could not be “Implied in law as a matter of fact.” The elements of a contract are: offer, acceptance and consideration. Consideration in this minor instance is whatever the conversation entails.
One has to admire the simplicity of the concept because when things appear to a third party that the apparent “parties” (in this case, “A & B”) are cooperating in an agreeable situation, what outward observer would argue that further analysis is necessary? If nobody is yelling and pointing fingers, there is no need to intervene, right? That is an observance from outside the situation. Inwardly, that may differ.
     How many kids have lost or given their lunch money to a “bully” over the years? Unless there is a witness who sees the threat without the “transaction” there may be no evidence for or against the supposed voluntary bargain between the “parties.” (Bully and victim) The surface implication may support that the victim gave a gift to the bully – creating an apparent implied agreement in the eyes of the third party. The presumption is that no dispute exists. However, should the now penniless victim show up with a black eye or other signs of a struggle then the presumption of voluntariness can be reasonably questioned by any onlooking parent, teacher, friend, etc.
     Not in that scenario, but in others wherein the parties actually agree with full knowledge of all the facts involved, the law will uphold implied agreement/contracts so long as the bargained for consideration/action/performance is legal. Then, of course, gray areas exist where some parts of an agreement only appear to be legal or the law sees the agreement as legal because neither party has (publicly or privately) objected to the conditions brought about by the “bargain,” like the bully scenario. No objection by either party implies agreement, but, is it true in a situation where one party only thinks the bargain is fair: based solely on representations by the other party? The law will see no reason to intervene if neither party objects, even though “bullying” another kid for his lunch money is an unlawful act. OK, that’s a stretch but there are conditions wherein the attention of one party to an agreement, is diverted from the ‘fine print’ by what amounts to deception by the manipulating party.
     My own experience and the impetus fueling this rant contain observations combined with research – a particular king of research – wherein my theories seem to be not only supported, but proven by authorities who are in-the-know. Their consent is IMPLIED. The CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE FOR PROOF OF CLAIMS, such as the one referenced above in “JUST CONTRADICTION” Part 3 (JC3), is an example of the document that; when sent to an official [in this case the Secretary of State of Texas], is by its language a sort of implied agreement exists between us and I wish their clarification. I think it is a good idea to include any subject matter that a person in their position might know or have access to. For example, the referenced CAFV, Item #102261/CST, on page 2 – the first PROOF OF CLAIM (POC), reads: ‘PROOF OF CLAIM that the all capital letters name, EDDIE A. NUNNELLEY, is not a corporate fiction created by the STATE, without permission of the undersigned non-corporate human.”
     The absolute non-response to that question and others by the Secretary of State is accepted by me as the opposite of what the POC request; in this case, that the all capital letters name indicated IS a corporate fiction! Their consent to that fact is implied by their silence!
     Obtaining the tacit agreement from the official is the point, and it is lawful. The law dictates that after a presentation of a document of this nature that a followup notice be sent, along with an affidavit supporting what amount to an admission from the official to whatever the agreement stipulates. In roughly 35 days, with no dispositive response from the official, the law will look at the inaction of the party and accept the quasi-contract as a binding implied consent agreement.
     If someone painted you house and said, “I’ll bill you,” then when the bill comes, after notification of the grace period, and you fail to “pay” or even respond to the bill, then your non-response can be presented to a court and the painter can obtain a default judgment and maybe a lien on your house by default. it is the same thing with the government official (in principle). In most stipulations presented, I know or have a good idea what the real truth is, and I’m looking for confirmation. By asking for a response UNDER OATH, should they choose to lie, then I have their own admission of their perjury. It would be implied, which is probably why so many agents of the government do not response, even though they are “Here to help you!”
     Currently, I have in my possession, several of this very kind of implied admissions, via tacit agreement from certain officials. I will utilize this as evidence to support my future writings in this blog and elsewhere. Why? I have to tell you, so “we” can kill their corruption, in the figurative sense only
     Stay tuned.

New Twittage (or Twirp)

     I said in the beginning of this blog that Ali3nizm/Ali3nz have something to d with people who are “anomic.” The Webster definition being, “people who are alienated from normal society. Lately, it occurs to me that the “Ali3n” definition of anomic should be expanded to stipulate – that “we” are not so much completely disenfranchised per se; but we are alienated from full participation in what is referred to as “normal society.” As referenced in the book, “Ai3nizm” Chapter 8, Ali3nz may be routinely obligated to bear a high percentage of the negative effects of “society”; but we are prevented in partaking in anything but a low percentage of the positive effect society offers.
     If we can be considered as “posterity” descended from the original “We the People,” who recorded constitutional evidence of a social construct on paper and theory goes, if “we” are the proxy creators of the social construct, then how did we become anomic or alienated from that which “we” created? In the sense of asking government officials the hard questions related or similar to the one just posed and getting the run around from them, is the reasoning for my offer of the below treatise.

"Twittage"

     The definition of “twittage” Not exactly a “tweet” because from where I’m standing, to tweet is under-possible – so my ali3n version is more of a “chirp.” Yet, as these chirps are given in the same spirit as tweets, “twittage” it is.